[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6317489,"mediaKeyId","2372382-fed070cfe83c2e5bdf303c5fd9fc8551","parentId",2372382,"title","Committee considers changes to ballot-access rules; votes to recommend ‘do not pass’ on HB1446","audioSeconds",7154,"startMs",438000,"endMs",7592000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372382-fed070cfe83c2e5bdf303c5fd9fc8551&start=438&end=7592","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372382-fed070cfe83c2e5bdf303c5fd9fc8551/thumbnail_438000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6317489/North-Dakota/Committee-considers-changes-to-ballot-access-rules-votes-to-recommend-do-not-pass-on-HB1446","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317489-70f16841d38f31b1c44531688932af48/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172673&Signature=CGDaaGrP6uNHcu4Y00Kx7v5LjpxQ7PvGRhr~WpzdXRMJqV8KiBGWXrtCudTu5nOIjMdtJ2a8BW4CEd2mvvlrEssvwLD4HNwuz47ir79WtYZUhkCAgn5V7Hxiw7fUBDDKdFjr9fqXEofxlmpjBAQbuSYKnv6D6n35dUMGQ5LL7IbjAMHNrIoX~SgnamvS7IzH9DVjVQYV~SPIanPyv4xSVbukR-QJaM7lKRm94sxu-dS82uqiYHDysDuNRWFniZbQ4Z7mdV3v8AaM4VGgiZl8WySMutTaRXVaQG4ZPfUi6hZHOQdYSaVCkcngE3qMY0wnO9XdmQImGFd~NcjE~aiUxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-21T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Mike Nathie, sponsor of amendments to House Bill 1446, told the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee that the changes would allow political parties to appoint a candidate to a statewide race if the party had not produced a nominating petition candidate within one week of the secretary of state’s filing deadline.

The amendment, Nathie said, “would allow if you've met the 1%, 167 signatures, even though you don't get the 1% of the primary, you can still move on.”

The proposal drew sharp debate about its effect on primary turnout and party influence. Opponents warned the change would weaken incentives for voters to participate in party primaries and could enable cross-over voting; supporters said the change would help smaller parties put candidates on the ballot for statewide offices.

Committee members questioned the mechanics and timing of the change. Legislative counsel clarified that the amendment was placed as a new subsection to section 16.1-... (section numbers shown in committee discussion) and that it hinges on the existing deadlines for submitting nominating petitions to the secretary of state. Counsel explained that subsection 5 references 71 days before the primary, which the sponsor described as “one week prior to the deadline to submit nominating petitions.”

Members also debated a separate repeal provision offered in the same amendment package that would allow a candidate who met the signature threshold to appear on the general-election ballot even if that candidate received less than 1% of the primary vote. Nathie summarized that change as protecting candidates who “already got the 1% of signatures” from being barred by a low primary vote total.

After initial consideration, the committee voted on an amendment package related to HB1446 and, following further floor-style procedure, ultimately took a committee recommendation of do not pass. The committee’s final recorded vote on the motion to recommend do not pass was 9-4-0.

Committee discussion recorded a mix of procedural and policy concerns: members raising administrative questions about where the one-week appointment window would be placed in statute; concerns that removing the 1% vote threshold would depress primary turnout; and counter-arguments that the signature requirement already demonstrates sufficient local support for a candidate. The sponsor said he had received the amendment the morning of the hearing and sought guidance from legislative counsel before proceeding.

The bill will not be recommended for passage from the committee; it will go forward to the House according to committee rules with the committee’s recommendation.

Votes at a glance: The committee adopted a later amendment package by roll call (8-5-0) to incorporate sponsor changes, and the committee later voted to recommend do not pass on House Bill 1446 (9-4-0).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Government and Veterans Affairs Friday, Feb 21, 2025 8:55 AM - 11:10 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Mike Nathie, sponsor of amendments to House Bill 1446, told the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee that the changes would allow political parties to appoint a candidate to a statewide race if the party had not produced a nominating petition candidate within one week of the secretary of state’s filing deadline.","taxTitle","Government and Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28892,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6317480,"Koppelman bill revises party endorsement certification; committee action and later do-not-pass on HB1424",5824,2075000,7899000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372382-fed070cfe83c2e5bdf303c5fd9fc8551&start=2075&end=7899","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372382-fed070cfe83c2e5bdf303c5fd9fc8551/thumbnail_2075000.jpg","/articles/6317480/North-Dakota/Koppelman-bill-revises-party-endorsement-certification-committee-action-and-later-do-not-pass-on-HB1424","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317480-d811dd01e8afbbb52d39eb9fa81f307b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172673&Signature=dKhX0wo7rCTgj1AEprKmOaZJJFJkwbh7UJXopnDR7H8AfDRnFZZazyEWDWvIB7d5x6TXfjQl4nFM7IB93IygXRlk06gAx06cSgisxUfW4WiNL7VaqoiiukKFHRvnjDJK8fDDGsppx3LVIWWB4U74xFL-lLRJG2JwfkRMVk6lbaIEFYPH3~dVKuNPAU~R6RUa4R3rkF5ibFRrypiX2QDLrFNEu9vYm1ByzyL8onzF5UwyzRkOaEC9eEWDLU3E0iJ5JGXJVJ6vR2MJFLVG2VRy0qQFiwkfxV2N5LfdfKgLepmaWU0US1ANYnG-Uw5zw3D-jNqlIRnXFAgqEKXeIQ3m~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Ben Koppelman, sponsor of House Bill 1424, told the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee that his amendments shift initial responsibility for reviewing endorsement challenges from state agencies to the political parties themselves.

Koppelman described an approach where a district chairman would sign a certificate of endorsement and forward it to the state committee; the state committee then would have at least seven days to wait and, if a protest was filed, investigate via an “inquiry committee” and either resolve or return the certificate to the district with instructions to correct deficiencies. \"If there is substance, then they have then they take the next 7 days to investigate,\" Koppelman said.

Koppelman argued the change respects party autonomy and aligns with court precedent that a state may not completely deny a party the ability to choose its nominee. He described the change as creating a 14-day process (seven days to allow protests and seven days to investigate) before the certificate is forwarded to the secretary of state.

Representative Carls described a district scenario where a convention chose an unknown candidate and then the candidate who obtained signatures won the primary; he asked whether the second candidate in that example could still appear on the primary or general ballot. Koppelman responded that under his proposal, if the party followed its process and produced a valid certificate, the endorsed candidate would occupy the party’s path unless the party failed to endorse or the endorsement was invalidated.

The committee adopted Koppelman’s amendments by roll call (motion recorded as carrying 11-1-1), but later in the meeting members debated the bill’s broader effect on party processes and grassroots participation. Representative Carls, Representative Vedder and others voiced concerns that the changes could reduce voters’ choices in primaries and shift power away from broader participation. After debate, the committee recorded a motion of do not pass on House Bill 1424; the roll call for the do-not-pass motion carried 7-5-1.

Koppelman said the bill is meant to create clarity around party endorsement procedures and help parties resolve internal disputes before they reach state officials. The bill and its amendments will appear in the committee record and proceed according to regular legislative process with the committee’s recommendation.","Representative Ben Koppelman presented amendments to a bill (HB1424) that would change how party endorsement certificates are issued and reviewed, creating an inquiry committee process within state party organizations. The committee adopted the amendments but later recommended do not pass on the bill.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6317485,"Committee backs amendment letting certain agencies seek their own attorneys; HB1601 moves from committee",3920,2940000,6860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372382-fed070cfe83c2e5bdf303c5fd9fc8551&start=2940&end=6860","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372382-fed070cfe83c2e5bdf303c5fd9fc8551/thumbnail_2940000.jpg","/articles/6317485/North-Dakota/Committee-backs-amendment-letting-certain-agencies-seek-their-own-attorneys-HB1601-moves-from-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317485-cdf458d144b74b492031505f351c5637/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172673&Signature=CEsyMwPHmIM18wxZq878~gJ9mdYJsGceiYFPThbPvpOq7kcPQXNztiSTqL-3zbv7BH4Nwkgof6dyV8ZU66gwQbxcPBYwdIVjrgtz9SM5ZVhzicye4K2VE3eST1DrjDgIscOpHi0pGO675-pCRC67mtR9PUaz0X3Kb7ZQx6SNBvOo6N3tJtS9KhqSoMyoUh3ChMa54tpHFhlFph7OjNDQzAwsDnMb2nSNPMWygzHz2syR6P2yBZOZajlpWuV-UCfosZ8u5maqcwKn2UNrPaBX552PnYvExQ59TfxOc1YF9bDf~me5FcR5gd6DAtbUZj0DsSx3716PEIPyffHXEO8ivA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Emily O’Brien’s bill, House Bill 1601, would allow specified agencies and constitutional officers to hire their own attorneys — subject to appropriations and personnel procedures — rather than relying solely on special assistant attorneys general embedded in the attorney general’s office.

Mary Kay Kelsch, assistant attorney general, told the committee that many organizations already receive representation from the attorney general’s office and that statutory language already places limits on revoking special assistant appointments. She described how agencies currently coordinate with the attorney general’s office and warned that giving every agency a unilateral right to hire could create inconsistency in statewide legal positions.

Commissioner Godfried (commissioner for a constitutional office who testified in support) argued the change would give constitutionally elected officials appropriate independence and allow agencies to secure attorneys whose work aligns with the agency’s mission. He noted that any new attorney position would require appropriations and that most agencies would need to justify a new FTE to the Appropriations Committee.

Committee members discussed the practical effects. Kelsch said some offices (for example, agriculture and public service commission portfolios) have long-standing embedded attorneys while others lack full-time counsel. She told the committee, “they're hired and employed by the attorney general's office... if they opened up a position in their office, my attorney, you know, could apply.”

The committee approved a series of amendments: an initial list-based amendment to include specific agencies was adopted on roll call (motion recorded as carrying 8-4-1), then a subsequent technical amendment (changing language so the attorney general could revoke an appointment only with the agreement of the entity rather than unilaterally) carried 13-0 on voice/roll call, per the transcript. The committee ultimately voted to give House Bill 1601 a do-pass recommendation; the roll call recorded the due-pass motion as carrying 11-2-0.

Members repeatedly emphasized that any independent attorney would still require legislative appropriations and that the attorney general’s office would remain the principal defender of state law in litigation brought against the state. The commissioner argued independence was important for constitutionally elected officers who may have differing policy priorities than the attorney general’s office.

The committee voted to send HB1601 forward with a favorable recommendation; the bill will proceed to the House floor with the committee’s amendments attached.","Lawmakers debated House Bill 1601, which would allow some state entities to hire and retain in-house attorneys rather than relying on the attorney general’s office for special assistant appointments. The committee adopted amendments narrowing the list and later voted a recommendation to pass.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee considers changes to ballot-access rules; votes to recommend ‘do not pass’ on HB1446

Koppelman bill revises party endorsement certification; committee action and later do-not-pass on HB1424

Committee backs amendment letting certain agencies seek their own attorneys; HB1601 moves from committee